I'd like to hear more about this fantastic bike that does all the work! No increase in fitness, eh? Just an "awful lot" quicker bike? Any white paper to back it up?

Apologies. It's an attempt at irony and humour - something often missed on the electronic page sadly. I'm a lot quicker because I train harder, eat more carefully and ride more. It of course has nothing to do with how a bike performs in a wind tunnel or on a test bench. Very little does really.

As for the rest of the comments, I should have known I would upset a large group of Cervelo fans by daring to critique their marketing style, or indeed anything to do with the company. I'm sorry for the offence. The company is very lucky to have such a vociferous on line body of fans who support their every move. Their marketing must appeal to some. For me personally, I'm sorry, it lacks class and I fail to see the attraction or substance in it. But I will drop out as I do not wish to be accused of trolling - which would likely be the next step.

What? Sorry, but you are saying that everything they are doing is marketing. Essentially saying there is no value in any engineering they have done. I'm not sure if you've ever read a paper written by an engineer vs one written by a marketing department, but it's pretty clear which one the Cervelo white papers fall under. The P3C completely changed the time trial game and the P5-6 is shown to be faster than even Trek's latest incarnation of the Speed Concept in their own white paper. And that was bike only, the stem of the Aduro bar and the flipup at the end of the toptube are detrimental in bike only tests. Do you know who John Cobb is? Ask him how the P4 tests in the tunnel. The Felt IA is a cool bike, but it's not anything like the P5-6 in terms of limitations. Aside from that, there's nothing that touches the P5-6. The S5 was also shown in independent tests to be the one to beat. It's long in the tooth by now, but even newer designs have problems matching or slightly beating its numbers (in each individual manufacturer's white papers).

You still haven't shown anything that would back up your username. Your expert testimony really does need some reinforcement. Do you have CFD experience, at least Star CCM+? Tunnel experience? Written any flow regime optimization code? Airfoil geometry design?

Go ask Felt, Trek, and Specialized if they think everything Cervelo has ever done was just "copying" and completely useless. I'm sure they will tell you the complete opposite. They really pushed the aero field forward.

Actually the Cervelo geo is horrendously facet IME. Great if you ride straight roads with the occasional crit. Not so stable if riding the twisty descents of the European mountains. In short, Cervelo are probably the liveliest geometries around in tandem with Canyon,, the BH Ultralight and a few others. I prefer a more neutral and stable design.

I'm curious how other riders of the current generation R3/5 feel about this. I happen to think that Cervelo decreased the trail of the R3/5 too much when they revised the geometry in 2011. The bike (in my case a '12 R5) is still stable, but for me is noticeably "twitchier" on the fast, twisting decents I encounter in the foothills around Denver. With a Zipp 303 on the front and swirling cross winds, it can get downright scary. By comparison, I never felt this with the old geometry on my '07 R3.

Personally, I was hoping for revised front end geometry. An optional fork with less offset (say 40mm rather than the standard 43mm) could be an easy way to dial in a bit of additional stability. While I'm at it, I would have liked to see Cervelo dial back the tall headtubes a bit, as well.

It's a possibility, I assumed that it's from the front end stiffness and fork stiffness, that makes it "twitchier", I am sure that there is a big difference but I am not sure what is better or why : ). It looks like the new R5 has a curved fork blade that might help a little if it's the stiffness and not the offset.

Made a couple of calls yesterday as very interested in the S3 frame. Available within the UK in 3/5 weeks time. £2,200 retail. But no internal battery option which concurs with the video which states the 'new' S3 has been ready for two years. I am surprised by this I love my hidden seat post battery. I may commit to the S3 but build it up with mechanical something.

Regarding white papers and what not, the old S3 was superb and if this rides like that for sheer speed I will be a happy bike rider. Far froma Cervelo fanboy but glad it does not look like the S5 too much. I do a lot of solo riding, fast and flat, skirting hills as I am average at climbing and my ideal kinda ride.

Actually the Cervelo geo is horrendously facet IME. Great if you ride straight roads with the occasional crit. Not so stable if riding the twisty descents of the European mountains. In short, Cervelo are probably the liveliest geometries around in tandem with Canyon,, the BH Ultralight and a few others. I prefer a more neutral and stable design.

I'm curious how other riders of the current generation R3/5 feel about this. I happen to think that Cervelo decreased the trail of the R3/5 too much when they revised the geometry in 2011. The bike (in my case a '12 R5) is still stable, but for me is noticeably "twitchier" on the fast, twisting decents I encounter in the foothills around Denver. With a Zipp 303 on the front and swirling cross winds, it can get downright scary. By comparison, I never felt this with the old geometry on my '07 R3.

Personally, I was hoping for revised front end geometry. An optional fork with less offset (say 40mm rather than the standard 43mm) could be an easy way to dial in a bit of additional stability. While I'm at it, I would have liked to see Cervelo dial back the tall headtubes a bit, as well.

All that said, I'll stick with my current R5 for a bit longer.

That's odd I find the handling is more stable on my R5 than it was on my R3SL. It's definitely a bit stiffer up front. I thought Cervelo beefed up the front end of the R series due to complaints it was twitchy. I quite liked the twitchier lighter handling of my R3SL even with the slightly less solid feel on descents. I remember when the R5/R5SL first came out around 2006 it had the best combination of weight, stiffness and comfort of any bike on the market. Back then if you had the money it was the only bike to get. As discussed Cervelo did tweak the geometry in 2011 for commercial reasons (not to produce a better bike in my view, they got it right the first time) but is otherwise unchanged in nearly 8 years. I don't think there is one other still popular bike on the market that you can say that about.

But no internal battery option which concurs with the video which states the 'new' S3 has been ready for two years. I am surprised by this I love my hidden seat post battery. I may commit to the S3 but build it up with mechanical something.

That's disappointing I was hoping it was due to lack of 6870 Di2 availability

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum